Editing H. H. Asquith (section)

===Domestic policy===
==== Reforming the House of Lords ====
Asquith hoped to act as a mediator between members of his cabinet as they pushed Liberal legislation through Parliament. Events, including conflict with the House of Lords, forced him to the front from the start of his premiership. Despite the Liberals' massive majority in the House of Commons, the Conservatives had overwhelming support in the unelected [[upper chamber]].{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|p=239}}{{efn|The imbalance in the Upper House had been caused by the Liberal split over the First Home Rule Bill in 1886, in which many Liberal peers had become [[Liberal Unionists]], who by this time had almost merged with the Conservatives. As had happened in the Liberal Governments of 1892–1895, a number of bills were voted down by the Conservative-dominated House of Lords during Campbell-Bannerman's premiership. Although the Lords passed the Trade Disputes Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Eight Hours Act, they rejected the Education Bill of 1906, an important measure in the eyes of Liberal nonconformist voters. See {{harvnb|Magnus 1964|p=532}}}} Campbell-Bannerman had favoured reforming the Lords by providing that a bill thrice passed by the Commons at least six months apart could become law without the Lords' consent, while diminishing the power of the Commons by reducing the maximum term of a parliament from seven to five years.{{sfn|Weston|p=508}} Asquith, as chancellor, had served on a cabinet committee that had written a plan to resolve legislative stalemates by a joint sitting of the Commons as a body with 100 of the peers.{{sfn|Weston|pp=508–512}} The Commons passed a number of pieces of legislation in 1908 which were defeated or heavily amended in the Lords, including a Licensing Bill, a Scottish Small Landholders' Bill, and a Scottish Land Values Bill.{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|p=239}}

None of these bills was important enough to dissolve parliament and seek a new mandate at a general election.<ref name="dnb"/> Asquith and Lloyd George believed the peers would back down if presented with Liberal objectives contained within a finance bill—the Lords had not obstructed a money bill since the 17th century and, after initially blocking [[Gladstone]]'s attempt (as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer|chancellor]]) to repeal Paper Duties, had yielded in 1861 when it was submitted again in a finance bill. Accordingly, the Liberal leadership expected that after much objection from the Conservative peers, the Lords would yield to policy changes wrapped within a budget bill.{{sfn|Koss|p=112}}

====1909: People's Budget====
[[File:Meeting of Asquith cabinet19090001.jpg|thumb|left|This 1909 ''Punch'' cartoon suggests the Liberals were delighted when the Lords forced an election. Back row: Haldane, Churchill with arms up, being hugged by his ally Lloyd George. Asquith standing at right. Bottom row: McKenna, Lord Crewe (with moustache), Augustine Birrell leaning back]]

In a major speech in December 1908, Asquith announced that the upcoming budget would reflect the Liberals' policy agenda, and the [[People's Budget]] that was submitted to Parliament by Lloyd George the following year greatly expanded [[social welfare]] programmes. To pay for them, it significantly increased both [[Direct tax|direct]] and [[Indirect tax|indirect]] taxes.<ref name="dnb"/> These included a 20 per cent tax on the unearned increase in value in land, payable at death of the owner or sale of the land. There would also be a tax of {{frac|1|2}}d in the pound{{efn|That is, half a penny in a pound at a time (until 1971) when the pound sterling was made up of 240 pence, thus the tax was {{frac|1|480}} of the land's value, annually.}} on undeveloped land. A graduated [[income tax]] was imposed, and there were increases in imposts on tobacco, beer and spirits.{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|pp=254–255}} A tax on petrol was introduced despite Treasury concerns that it could not work in practice. Although Asquith held fourteen cabinet meetings to assure unity amongst his ministers,<ref name="dnb"/> there was opposition from some Liberals; Rosebery described the budget as "inquisitorial, tyrannical, and Socialistic".{{sfn|Jenkins|p=199}}

The budget divided the country and provoked bitter debate through the summer of 1909.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=198–199}} The [[Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe|Northcliffe]] Press (''[[The Times]]'' and the ''[[Daily Mail]]'') urged rejection of the budget to give tariff reform (indirect taxes on imported goods which, it was felt, would encourage British industry and trade within the Empire) a chance; there were many public meetings, some of them organised by [[duke]]s, in protest at the budget.{{sfn|Magnus 1964|pp=232, 527}} Many Liberal politicians attacked the peers, including Lloyd George in his [[Newcastle upon Tyne]] speech, in which he said "a fully-equipped duke costs as much to keep up as two [[Dreadnought]]s; and dukes are just as great a terror and they last longer".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lloyd George|first1=David|author-link1=David|editor=Guedalla, Philip|editor-link=Philip Guedalla|title=Slings and Arrows – Sayings Chosen from the Speeches of the Rt Hon David Lloyd George, OM, MP|year=1929|publisher=Cassell and Company, Ltd|location=London|page = 111|chapter = Budget: Newcastle Speech}}</ref> King Edward privately urged Conservative leaders Balfour and [[Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne|Lord Lansdowne]] to pass the Budget (this was not unusual, as [[Queen Victoria]] had helped to broker agreement between the two Houses over the [[Irish Church Act 1869]] and the [[Representation of the People Act 1884|Third Reform Act in 1884]]).{{sfn|Heffer|pp=281–282}}

From July it became increasingly clear that the Conservative peers would reject the budget, partly in the hope of forcing an election.{{sfn|Magnus 1964|p=534}} If they rejected it, Asquith determined, he would have to ask the King to dissolve Parliament, four years into a seven-year term,<ref name="dnb"/> as it would mean the legislature had refused [[Confidence and supply|supply]].{{efn|Asquith had to apologise to the King's adviser [[Lord Knollys]] for a Churchill speech calling for a Dissolution and rebuked Churchill at a Cabinet Meeting (21 July 1909) telling him to keep out of "matters of high policy", as the monarch's permission was needed to dissolve Parliament prematurely. See {{harvnb|Magnus 1964|p=527}}}} The budget passed the Commons on 4 November 1909, but was voted down in the Lords on the 30th, the Lords passing a resolution by Lord Lansdowne stating that they were entitled to oppose the finance bill as it lacked an electoral mandate.{{sfn|Heffer|pp=283–284}} Asquith had Parliament [[Legislative session#United Kingdom|prorogued]] three days later for an election beginning on 15 January 1910, with the Commons first passing a resolution deeming the Lords' vote to be an attack on the constitution.{{sfn|Koss|pp=116–117}}

====1910: election and constitutional deadlock====
[[File:1910c H H Asquith.jpg|thumb|Asquith in an [[Autochrome Lumière|Autochrome]] by [[Lionel de Rothschild (born 1882)|Lionel de Rothschild]], {{Circa| 1910}}]]

The [[January 1910 general election]] was dominated by talk of removing the Lords' veto.<ref name="dnb"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Blewett|first=Neal|author-link=Neal Blewett|title=The Peers, the Parties and the People: The British General Elections of 1910|year=1972|location=Toronto and Buffalo|publisher=University of Toronto Press|url=https://archive.org/details/peerspartiespeop0000blew/page/n5/mode/2up|url-access=registration|isbn=0-8020-1838-6}}</ref> A possible solution was to threaten to have King Edward pack the House of Lords with freshly minted Liberal peers, who would override the Lords's veto; Asquith's talk of safeguards was taken by many to mean that he had secured the King's agreement to this. They were mistaken; the King had informed Asquith that he would not consider a mass creation of peers until after a ''second'' general election.<ref name="dnb"/>

Lloyd George and Churchill were the leading forces in the Liberals' appeal to the voters; Asquith, clearly tired, took to the hustings for a total of two weeks during the campaign, and when the polls began, journeyed to [[Cannes]] with such speed that he neglected an engagement with the King, to the monarch's annoyance.{{sfn|Koss|p=117}} The result was a [[hung parliament]]. The Liberals lost heavily from their great majority of 1906, but still finished with two more seats than the Conservatives. With [[Nationalist Party (Ireland)|Irish Nationalist]] and Labour support, the government would have ample support on most issues, and Asquith stated that his majority compared favourably with those enjoyed by [[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|Palmerston]] and [[Lord John Russell]].{{sfn|Koss|p=118}}

[[File:Herbert Henry Asquith Vanity Fair 17 March 1910.jpg|right|thumb|upright|Asquith caricatured in ''[[Vanity Fair (British magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'', 1910]]

Immediate further pressure to remove the Lords' veto now came from the Irish MPs, who wanted to remove the Lords' ability to block the introduction of Irish Home Rule. They threatened to vote against the Budget unless they had their way.{{sfn|Magnus 1964|p=548}}{{efn| Irish nationalists, unlike Liberals, favoured tariff reform, and opposed the planned increase in whisky duty, but an attempt by Lloyd George to win their support by cancelling it was abandoned as the Cabinet felt that this was recasting the Budget too much, and because it would also have annoyed nonconformist voters. See {{harvnb|Magnus 1964|pp=548, 553}}}} With another general election likely before long, Asquith had to make clear the Liberal policy on constitutional change to the country without alienating the Irish and Labour. This initially proved difficult, and the King's speech opening Parliament was vague on what was to be done to neutralise the Lords' veto. Asquith dispirited his supporters by stating in Parliament that he had neither asked for nor received a commitment from the King to create peers.<ref name="dnb"/> The cabinet considered resigning and leaving it up to Balfour to try to form a Conservative government.{{sfn|Heffer|pp=290–293}}

The budget passed the Commons again, and this time was approved by the Lords in April without a division.{{sfn|Koss|p=121}} The cabinet finally decided to back a plan based on Campbell-Bannerman's, that a bill passed by the Commons in three consecutive annual sessions would become law notwithstanding the Lords' objections. Unless the King guaranteed that he would create enough Liberal peers to pass the bill, ministers would resign and allow Balfour to form a government, leaving the matter to be debated at the ensuing general election.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=208–210}} On 14 April 1910, the Commons passed resolutions that would become the basis of the eventual [[Parliament Act 1911]]: to remove the power of the Lords to veto money bills, to reduce blocking of other bills to a two-year power of delay, and also to reduce the term of a parliament from seven years to five.{{sfn|Heffer|pp=286–288}} In that debate Asquith also hinted—in part to ensure the support of the Irish MPs—that he would ask the King to break the deadlock "in that Parliament" (i.e. that he would ask for the mass creation of peers, contrary to the King's earlier stipulation that there be a second election).{{sfn|Heffer|p=293}}{{efn|By April the King was being advised by Balfour and the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] (to whom he had turned for relatively neutral constitutional advice) that the Liberals did not have sufficient electoral mandate to demand creation of peers. See {{harvnb|Magnus 1964|pp=555–556}}. King Edward thought the whole proposal "simply disgusting" and that the government was "in the hands of [[John Redmond|Redmond]] & Co". Lord Crewe, Liberal leader in the Lords, announced publicly that the government's wish to create peers should be treated as formal "ministerial advice" (which, by [[Constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom|convention]], the monarch must obey) although [[Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher|Lord Esher]] argued that the monarch was entitled ''[[wikt:in extremis|in extremis]]'' to dismiss the Government rather than take their "advice". See {{harvnb|Heffer|pp=294–296}}.}}

These plans were scuttled by the death of Edward VII on 6 May 1910. Asquith and his ministers were initially reluctant to press the new king, [[George V]], in mourning for his father, for commitments on constitutional change, and the monarch's views were not yet known. With a strong feeling in the country that the parties should compromise, Asquith and other Liberals met with Conservative leaders in a number of conferences through much of the remainder of 1910. These talks failed in November over Conservative insistence that there be no limits on the Lords's ability to veto Irish Home Rule.<ref name="dnb"/> When the Parliament Bill was submitted to the Lords, they made amendments that were not acceptable to the government.{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|pp=298–299}}

====1910–1911: second election and Parliament Act====
[[File:1911-New-Perrs-UK-Punch.jpg|thumb|300px|''Punch'' 1911 cartoon shows Asquith and Lloyd George preparing coronets for 500 new peers]]

On 11 November, Asquith asked King George to dissolve Parliament for [[December 1910 United Kingdom general election|another general election in December]], and on the 14th met again with the King and demanded assurances the monarch would create an adequate number of Liberal peers to carry the Parliament Bill. The King was slow to agree, and Asquith and his cabinet informed him they would resign if he did not make the commitment. Balfour had told King Edward that he would form a Conservative government if the Liberals left office but the new King did not know this. The King reluctantly gave in to Asquith's demand, writing in his diary that, "I disliked having to do this very much, but agreed that this was the only alternative to the Cabinet resigning, which at this moment would be disastrous".<ref>{{cite ODNB |last=Matthew |first=H. C. G. |title=George V (1865–1936) |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/33369 |access-date=28 July 2015 |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/33369}}</ref>

Asquith dominated the short election campaign, focusing on the Lords' veto in calm speeches, compared by his biographer Stephen Koss to the "wild irresponsibility" of other major campaigners.{{sfn|Koss|p=125}} In a speech at [[Kingston upon Hull|Hull]], he stated that the Liberals' purpose was to remove the obstruction, not establish an ideal upper house, "I have always got to deal—the country has got to deal—with things here and now. We need an instrument [of constitutional change] that can be set to work at once, which will get rid of deadlocks, and give us the fair and even chance in legislation to which we are entitled, and which is all that we demand."{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|pp=299–300}}

[[File:Passing of the Parliament Bill, 1911 - Project Gutenberg eText 19609.jpg|thumb|left|Samuel Begg's depiction of the passing of the Parliament Bill in the House of Lords, 1911]]

The election resulted in little change to the party strengths (the Liberal and Conservative parties were exactly equal in size; by 1914 the Conservative Party would actually be larger owing to by-election victories). Nevertheless, Asquith remained in [[10 Downing Street|Number Ten]], with a large majority in the Commons on the issue of the House of Lords. The Parliament Bill again passed the House of Commons in April 1911, and was heavily amended in the Lords. Asquith advised King George that the monarch would be called upon to create the peers, and the King agreed, asking that his pledge be made public, and that the Lords be allowed to reconsider their opposition. Once it was, there was a raging internal debate within the Conservatives on whether to give in, or to continue to vote no even when outnumbered by hundreds of newly created peers. After lengthy debate, on 10 August 1911 the Lords voted narrowly not to insist on their amendments, with many Conservative peers abstaining and a few voting in favour of the government; the bill was passed into law.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=222–230}}

According to Jenkins, although Asquith had at times moved slowly during the crisis, "on the whole, Asquith's slow moulding of events had amounted to a masterly display of political nerve and patient determination. Compared with [the Conservatives], his leadership was outstanding."{{sfn|Jenkins|p=231}} Churchill wrote to Asquith after the second 1910 election, "your leadership was the main and conspicuous feature of the whole fight".{{sfn|Koss|p=125}} Matthew, in his article on Asquith, found that, "the episode was the zenith of Asquith's prime ministerial career. In the British Liberal tradition, he patched rather than reformulated the constitution."<ref name="dnb"/>

====Social, religious and labour matters====
Despite the distraction of the problem of the House of Lords, Asquith and his government moved ahead with a number of pieces of reforming legislation. According to Matthew, "no peacetime premier has been a more effective enabler. Labour exchanges, the introduction of unemployment and health insurance&nbsp;... reflected the reforms the government was able to achieve despite the problem of the Lords. Asquith was not himself a 'new Liberal', but he saw the need for a change in assumptions about the individual's relationship to the state, and he was fully aware of the political risk to the Liberals of a Labour Party on its left flank."<ref name="dnb"/> Keen to keep the support of the Labour Party, the Asquith government passed bills urged by that party, including the [[Trade Union Act 1913]] (reversing the [[Osborne judgment]]) and in 1911 granting MPs a salary, making it more feasible for working-class people to serve in the House of Commons.{{sfn|Koss|p=230}}

In 1911, there were fears of a potential miner's strike immediately following a railwaymen's strike in August. In February 1912, the executives of the [[Miners' Federation of Great Britain|Miners' Federation]] voted in favour of a strike. Asquith, alongside Lloyd George, Buxton, and Grey, met the executives at the [[Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office|Foreign Office]], where he accepted the principle of a minimum wage but rejected the 5 and 2 demand.{{Sfn|Koss||pp=132–33}} As threatened, the strike began. Following the failure of attempts by the cabinet to compromise, the government resorted to [[emergency]] legislation. In March, the Miner's Minimum Wage Bill was passed through the Commons and the Lords, adhering to its policy of not opposing trade unions, approved the measure. Asquith emotionally presented the Bill for its third reading, saying “we have exhausted all our powers of persuasion and argument and negotiation.”  The bill was passed and the [[Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act 1912|new act]] established district boards to determine minimum wages with trade union representation. In April, a union vote failed to secure a two-thirds majority for continuation, and miners returned to work.{{Sfn|Koss||p=133}}

Asquith had as chancellor placed money aside for the provision of non-contributory [[old-age pension]]s; the bill authorising them passed in 1908, during his premiership, despite some objection in the Lords.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=166–167, 188}} Jenkins noted that the scheme (which provided five shillings a week to single pensioners aged seventy and over, and slightly less than twice that to married couples) "to modern ears sounds cautious and meagre. But it was violently criticised at the time for showing a reckless generosity."{{sfn|Jenkins|p=167}}  In 1913,  a committee was established to develop a land reform scheme. The committee produced a comprehensive report on rural land issues and its proposals were largely accepted by government ministers and formed the foundation of Lloyd George's “Land Campaign”.{{Sfn|Spender & Asquith|p=357}} In August 1913, following the [[Prorogation in the United Kingdom|prorogation of Parliament]], the final proposals were presented to Asquith at a ministerial gathering at Haldane's house. Asquith ultimately approved them, including the introduction of a minimum wage for agricultural labourers, despite previously being reluctant on the issue.{{Sfn|Spender & Asquith|p=358}}

The [[Children Act 1908]] consolidated multiple previous laws to improve [[Child Welfare|child welfare]]. It established juvenile courts, remand homes, and prohibited placing children under 16 in adult prisons. The Act also aimed to enhance parental responsibility and state involvement in child welfare.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Laybourn |first=Keith |title=The Evolution of British Social Policy and the Welfare State, C. 1800–1993 |date=1 January 1995 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=978-1853310768 |pages=169–170}}</ref>  Both the old-age pensions and the Children Act reduced the number of people dependent on the Poor Law. Lloyd George then further aimed to alleviate the impact of ill health with the [[National Insurance Act 1911]]. The health scheme worked within the constraints of existing systems, managed by friendly societies and trade unions, and operated by insurance companies.  Under the health insurance scheme, workers aged 16 to 65, earning under $150 per year, paid 4d. per week, with employers contributing 3d. and the state 2d. This funded benefits like sickness pay, with men receiving 10s. (50p) per week and women 7s. 6d. for the first 13 weeks of illness, and 5s. thereafter. The 1911 National Insurance Act later expanded this with unemployment insurance.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Laybourn |first=Keith |title=The Evolution of British Social Policy and the Welfare State, C. 1800–1993 |date=1 January 1995 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |pages=170–175}}</ref>

Asquith's new government became embroiled in a controversy over the [[Eucharistic Congress]] of 1908, held in London. Following the [[Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829]], the [[Catholic Church]] had seen a resurgence in Britain, and a large procession displaying the [[Blessed Sacrament]] was planned to allow the laity to participate. Although such an event was forbidden by the 1829 act, planners counted on the British reputation for religious tolerance,<ref name="Devlin">{{cite journal|last=Devlin|first=Carol A.|date=September 1994|title=The Eucharistic Procession of 1908: The Dilemma of the Liberal Government|journal=[[Church History (journal)|Church History]]|volume=6|issue=3|pages=408–409|doi=10.2307/3167537|quote=However, the organizers expected few problems because of the English reputation for religious tolerance and hospitality.|jstor=3167537|s2cid=161572080}}</ref> and [[Francis Cardinal Bourne]], the [[Archbishop of Westminster]], had obtained permission from the Metropolitan Police. When the plans became widely known, King Edward objected, as did many other Protestants. Asquith received inconsistent advice from his Home Secretary, [[Herbert Gladstone]], and successfully pressed the organisers to cancel the religious aspects of the procession, though it cost him the resignation of his only Catholic cabinet minister, [[Lord Ripon]].{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=190–193}}

Disestablishment of the Welsh Church was a Liberal priority, but despite support by most Welsh MPs, there was opposition in the Lords. Asquith was an authority on Welsh disestablishment from his time under Gladstone, but had little to do with the passage of [[Welsh Church Act 1914|the bill]]. It was twice rejected by the Lords, in 1912 and 1913, but having been forced through under the Parliament Act received royal assent in September 1914, with the provisions [[Suspensory Act 1914|suspended]] until war's end.<ref name="dnb"/>{{sfn|Spender & Asquith|p=356}}

==== Votes for women ====
{{See also|Suffragette bombing and arson campaign}}
[[File:Votes for Women lapel pin (Nancy).jpg|thumb|right|Early 20th century suffragist lapel pin]]
Asquith had opposed votes for women as early as 1882, and he remained well known as an adversary throughout his time as prime minister.{{sfn|Koss|p=131}} He took a detached view of the women's suffrage question, believing it should be judged on whether extending the franchise would improve the system of government, rather than as a question of rights. He did not understand—Jenkins ascribed it to a failure of imagination—why passions were raised on both sides over the issue. He told the House of Commons in 1913, while complaining of the "exaggerated language" on both sides, "I am sometimes tempted to think, as one listens to the arguments of supporters of women's suffrage, that there is nothing to be said for it, and I am sometimes tempted to think, as I listen to the arguments of the opponents of women's suffrage, that there is nothing to be said against it."{{sfn|Jenkins|p=247}}

In 1906 suffragettes [[Annie Kenney]], [[Adelaide Knight]], and [[Jane Sbarborough]] were arrested when they tried to obtain an audience with Asquith.<ref name="eastendwomensmuseum"/><ref name="Taylor2014">{{cite book|author=Rosemary Taylor|title=East London Suffragettes|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MlwTDQAAQBAJ&pg=PP32|date=2014|publisher=History Press|isbn=978-0-7509-6216-2|pages=32–}}</ref> Offered either six weeks in prison or giving up campaigning for one year, the women all chose prison.<ref name="eastendwomensmuseum">{{Cite web|url=https://eastendwomensmuseum.org/blog/adelaide-knight-leader-of-the-first-east-london-suffragettes|title=Adelaide Knight, leader of the first east London suffragettes|website=East End Women's Museum|date=12 October 2016 |access-date=1 March 2018|archive-date=2 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200402124519/https://eastendwomensmuseum.org/blog/adelaide-knight-leader-of-the-first-east-london-suffragettes|url-status=live}}</ref> Asquith was a target for militant suffragettes as they abandoned hope of achieving the vote through peaceful means. He was several times the subject of their tactics: approached (to his annoyance) arriving at 10 Downing Street (by [[Olive Fargus]] and [[Catherine Corbett]] whom he called 'silly women',<ref>{{Cite book |last=Atkinson | first = Diane| author-link = Diane Atkinson| date =  2018 |title=Rise up, women!: the remarkable lives of the suffragettes |location=London |publisher=Bloomsbury | isbn=9781408844045 | oclc=1016848621}}</ref> confronted at evening parties, accosted on the golf course, and ambushed while driving to [[Stirling]] to dedicate a memorial to Campbell-Bannerman. On the last occasion, his top hat proved adequate protection against the dog whips wielded by the women. These incidents left him unmoved, as he did not believe them a true manifestation of public opinion.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=247–248}}

With a growing majority of the Cabinet, including Lloyd George and Churchill, in favour of [[women's suffrage]], Asquith was pressed to allow consideration of a [[private member's bill]] to give women the vote. The majority of Liberal MPs were also in favour.<ref name="plot">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/29/gender.women|title=Government feared suffragette plot to kill Asquith|work=The Guardian|access-date=15 April 2011|location=London|first=Maev|last=Kennedy|author-link=Maev Kennedy|date=29 September 2006|archive-date=6 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180206100335/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/29/gender.women|url-status=live}}</ref> Jenkins deemed him one of the two main prewar obstacles to women gaining the vote, the other being the suffragists's own militancy. In 1912, Asquith reluctantly agreed to permit a free vote on an amendment to a pending reform bill, allowing women the vote on the same terms as men. This would have satisfied Liberal suffrage supporters, and many suffragists, but the Speaker in January 1913 ruled that the amendment changed the nature of the bill, which would have to be withdrawn. Asquith was loud in his complaints against the Speaker, but was privately relieved.{{sfn|Jenkins|pp=248–250}}

Asquith belatedly came around to support women's suffrage in 1917,{{sfn|Jenkins|p=467}} by which time he was out of office. Women over the age of thirty were eventually given the vote by Lloyd George's government under the [[Representation of the People Act 1918]]. Asquith's reforms to the House of Lords eased the way for the passage of the bill.<ref>{{cite book|title=Stepping Stones to Women's Liberty: Feminist Ideas in the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1900–1918|first=Les|last=Garner|publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press|location=[[Rutherford, New Jersey]]|page=[https://archive.org/details/steppingstonesto00garn/page/96 96]|isbn=978-0-8386-3223-9|year=1984|url=https://archive.org/details/steppingstonesto00garn/page/96}}</ref>